Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Abstract: Modern society uses massive amounts of energy. Usage rises as population and affluence increase,
and energy production and use often have an impact on biodiversity or natural areas. To avoid a businessas-usual dependence on coal, oil, and gas over the coming decades, society must map out a future energy
mix that incorporates alternative sources. This exercise can lead to radically different opinions on what a
sustainable energy portfolio might entail, so an objective assessment of the relative costs and benefits of
different energy sources is required. We evaluated the land use, emissions, climate, and cost implications
of 3 published but divergent storylines for future energy production, none of which was optimal for all
environmental and economic indicators. Using multicriteria decision-making analysis, we ranked 7 major
electricity-generation sources (coal, gas, nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, and solar) based on costs and benefits
and tested the sensitivity of the rankings to biases stemming from contrasting philosophical ideals. Irrespective
of weightings, nuclear and wind energy had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio. Although the environmental
movement has historically rejected the nuclear energy option, new-generation reactor technologies that fully
recycle waste and incorporate passive safety systems might resolve their concerns and ought to be more
widely understood. Because there is no perfect energy source however, conservation professionals ultimately
need to take an evidence-based approach to consider carefully the integrated effects of energy mixes on
biodiversity conservation. Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes
that minimize net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energyrelated biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals.
Keywords: climate change, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, land use, pollution, sustainable energy
Un Papel Clave para la Energa Nuclear en la Conservaci
on de la Biodiversidad Global
Resumen: La sociedad moderna usa cantidades masivas de energa y el uso de estas incrementa conforme
la poblaci
on y la riqueza aumentan. La producci
on de energas y su uso continuamente han tenido un
impacto sobre la biodiversidad o las a
reas naturales. Para evitar la normalidad con la que se depende del
carb
on, el petr
oleo y el gas en las pr
oximas decadas, la sociedad debe encontrar una futura mezcla de energas
que incorpore fuentes alternativas. Este ejercicio puede llevar a opiniones radicalmente diferentes sobre lo
que un portafolio de energas sustentables puede implicar, as que se requiera de una evaluaci
on objetiva
de los costos y beneficios relativos de las diferentes fuentes de energa. Evaluamos el uso de suelo, emisiones,
clima e implicaciones de costo de tres lneas argumentales publicadas pero divergentes sobre el futuro de la
producci
on de energa, ninguna de las cuales fue o
omicos.
ptima para todos los indicadores ambientales y econ
Al usar un an
alisis de toma de decisiones con criterios m
ultiples, ordenamos a siete fuentes generadoras de
electricidad (carb
on, gas, nuclear, biomasa, hidrol
ogica, e
olica y solar) con base en costos y beneficios y
evaluamos la sensibilidad de las clasificaciones a sesgos originados de ideales filos
oficos contrastantes. Sin
importar las ponderaciones, la energa nuclear y la e
olica tuvieron la relaci
on costo-beneficio m
as alta.
Aunque el movimiento ambiental hist
oricamente ha rechazado la opci
on de la energa nuclear, la tecnologa
de reactores de nueva generaci
on que reciclan completamente los desechos e incorporan sistemas pasivos de
Current
address: Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology, University of Tasmania, TAS 7005, Australia
Paper submitted March 22, 2014; revised manuscript accepted September 14, 2014.
This is an open-access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
702
Conservation Biology, Volume 29, No. 3, 702712
C 2014 The Authors Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12433
703
seguridad puede resolver las preocupaciones ambientalistas y debera ser entendido con mayor profundidad.
Ya que no existen fuentes de energa perfectas, los profesionales de la conservaci
on necesitan tener un enfoque
basado en evidencias para considerar cuidadosamente los efectos integrados de la mezcla de energas sobre
la conservaci
on de la biodiversidad. Las compensaciones y los acuerdos mutuos son inevitables y requieren
abogar por las mezclas de energa que minimicen el da
no ambiental neto. La sociedad no puede permitirse el
riesgo de un fracaso total en la se
nalizaci
on de impactos sobre la biodiversidad relacionados con la energa
por causa de ideales y nociones preconcebidas.
Palabras Clave: cambio climatico, combustibles fosiles, contaminacion, energa sustentable, gases invernadero,
uso de suelo
Introduction
Over the last few centuries, civilization has become a
vast and ceaselessly expanding consumer of energy, delivered primarily by fossil fuels (>80%)coal, oil, and
natural gas. The latest compiled data from 2011 show
that approximately 550 exajoules (1 EJ = 1018 J) of primary energy were consumed by the global economy in
that year (IEA 2013). Yet given the mounting threat of
greenhouse gas-induced climate change and the chronic
health impacts and energy-security problems associated
with a reliance on burning fossil fuels, it is imperative
that we seek substitute forms of energy supply in coming
decades (Kharecha & Hansen 2013). In 2011, for global
electricity generation (80 EJ of final energy in 2011), hydroelectric dams supplied the largest nonfossil component (15.8%), followed by nuclear (11.7%), wind (2.0%),
biomass (1.9%), and solar power (0.3%) (IEA 2013). The
transportation, mechanized agricultural, and industrial
sector demands remain, for now, almost completely satisfied by fossil fuels.
Forecasts point to a difficult transition (IPCC 2011).
Energy use is set to continue to rise, driven largely by burgeoning demand for low-cost electricity in the developing
world (Clarke et al. 2007). Moreover, extraction of a vast
resource of environmentally damaging unconventional
fossil fuels has begun (e.g., shale gas, tar sands, coalseam gas) (Wigley 2011). Socioeconomic and technical
momentum will make this trend toward cheap and readily
available new fossil energy difficult to discourage and will
require articulation of a well-planned, cost-competitive,
and evidence-based alternative strategy (Mackay 2008;
Nicholson 2012). If this energy future is to be relatively
benign to nature, the costs and benefits of all competing
energy forms will need to be carefully traded-off (Blees
2008). We argue that conservation professionals have a
key role to play in this policy arena.
For the least direct harm to biodiversity, the best
energy options are those that use the least amount of
land and fresh water (in production or mining), minimize
pollution (e.g., carbon dioxide, aerosols, heavy metals,
and toxic chemicals), restrict habitat fragmentation, and
have a low risk of accidents that have large and lasting
regional impacts on natural areas (e.g., oil spills, damburst floods, radioactive fallout). Yet the indirect effects
of energy production are also critical. Conservationfriendly energy sources must also be cost-effective,
reliable, and accessible relative to more environmentally
damaging methods if they are to displace them.
We reviewed the links between energy supply and
biodiversity conservation, considered the potential and
problems of some of the most widely touted nonfossilfuel alternatives (renewable and nuclear), and devised a
basic framework that can be used to rank and balance
energy options objectively. Our goal was not to be overly
prescriptive; rather, we sought to show why and how
conservation scientists could engage most effectively in
the energy-policy debate and so yield the best outcomes
for global biodiversity.
Intertwining of Biodiversity and Industrial Energy
Conservation biologists readily acknowledge that 2 of the
principal drivers of terrestrial biodiversity extinctions are
habitat degradation and lossmainly via agricultural expansion, logging, urbanization, and pollution (Brook et al.
2008). Climate disruption, and its synergies with other
extinction drivers, will also continue to worsen over centuries and so strongly influence future species distributions (Bellard et al. 2012). Thus, it follows that anything
humanity can do to mitigate climate warming, energyrelated pollution, and land-use changes that negatively
affect species will ultimately benefit biodiversity. Given
that energy production from fossil fuelsfor electricity,
transportation, and industrial processesis the principal source of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions,
biodiversity conservation is intrinsically intertwined with
how we source our energy (Wiens et al. 2011).
Cutting emissions is, however, only one aspect of the
complex relationship between energy and biodiversity.
For example, hydroelectricity dams are largely emissionsfree after construction, but they can wreak havoc on local
biodiversity through flooding and by obstructing migration (Dudgeon 2006). Globally, around 60% of the worlds
rivers were considered regulated in 2001; over 40,000
large dams (>100 have walls higher than 150 m) and
their resulting reservoirs cover 500,000 km2 (McAllister
et al. 2001). Other renewable energy sources are also
land hungry (Wiens et al. 2011). Biofuels and wind
energy in particular require land area per unit energy
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
704
Figure 1. Comparison of energy-mix scenarios. (a) Global electricity production by source (expressed as
proportions that sum to 1) and greenhouse-gas emissions by source in 2011 and (bd) electricity use and
greenhouse-gas emissions by source for 3 future scenarios: (b) a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for the year
2035 from World Energy Outlook (2013), (c) the renewables-focused Energy [R]evolution scenario from
Greenpeace (for 2050), and (d) the near-total decarbonization scenario (for 2060) from Brook (2012). In
(a) total primary energy is 547 EJ (exajoules) and the electricity component of total primary energy is 22113 TWh
(terawatt hours). This is forecast to rise to 77,000 TWh of electricity in 2060 in (c), so scenarios (a) and (b) were
rescaled proportionally to meet this generation target. Emissions are expressed in megatonnes carbon-dioxide
equivalents (Mt) and as a proportion of each type of fossil-fuel contribution; absolute emissions are in Fig. 2.
Other is geothermal, wave, and tidal energy production.
produced similar to hydroelectric dams (photovoltaic solar requires about 9 times less area per unit energy) (Supporting Information) (Pimentel & Pimentel 2007). Given
that protected areas alone will be insufficient to safeguard
biodiversity (Laurance et al. 2012), the conflict for space
between energy production and habitat will remain one
of the key future conservation issues to resolve.
The demand for cropland production has been
increasing by around 3.4 million ha/year, partly to
keep pace with worlds growing human population
and consumption patterns (FAOSTAT 2009), which
means that the additional burden of biofuel production
could see increasingly larger areas commandeered for
agriculture. For example, Stickler et al. (2007) estimate
that 746 million ha of tropical forest are suitable
for biofuel production (palm, soy, sugarcane) and if
converted could provide 63% of global transportation fuel
demand by 2030, releasing 443 Pg (1 Pg = 1015 g) of CO2
(Wiens et al. 2011). Land clearing for biofuel production
also increases emissions from forest clearance (Mason
Earles et al. 2012), removing the sequestration services
of high-carbon-density forests and soils and increasing
opportunity costs for conservation by raising land prices
(Luyssaert et al. 2008). Indeed, the conversion of forests
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
705
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
706
Figure 2. Land area converted for energy production (hatched and white bars), annualized cost of total electricity
generation (above bars, US$ trillions, T$), greenhouse-gas emissions (black bars), and forecast increase in late
21st century global temperature (above bars) associated with 3 future energy-mix scenarios, standardized for
comparison to meet the same total energy demand of 77,000 terawatt hours (based on large-scale electrification
to cover stationary electricity, transportation, industrial and agricultural energy sectors): (a) business-as-usual
(BAU), high fossil-fuel dependence (based on the World Energy Outlook [IEA 2013]); (b) high renewables,
excluding nuclear (Greenpeace 2012); and (c) high nuclear, medium renewables (Brook 2012). See Fig. 1 for
energy mixes. Scenarios and details of input values and underpinning calculations are in Supporting Information.
particularly contentious energy option. For completeness, in the Supporting Information we also provide
a more detailed contrast among other best performers
arising from the MCDMAnatural gas, wind, and solar.
Nuclear-power advocates have fought an enduring battle to present this energy source as clean, safe, and
sustainable. Today, a mix of lingering myths and halftruths continue to influence peoples thinking on nuclear
power (Blees 2008), whereas proponents of other lowcarbon energy-production types typically do not admit
to the difficulties of large-scale use of these technologies
(Trainer 2012). Common qualms about nuclear energy
are that uranium supplies will soon run out, long-lived
radioactive waste needs isolation for 100,000 years, large
amounts of greenhouse gases are produced over the full
nuclear cycle, development is too slow and costly, and
large-scale deployment increases the risk of nuclear war.
Crises such as the one at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
plant (a 1960s vintage reactor) in Japan in 2011, triggered
by a massive earthquake and tsunami, amplified peoples
concerns (Hong et al. 2013b). Yet, given the urgency of
the global environmental challenges we must deal with
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
1,001,000
100.1
A
2.1
161
58,600
mid
value
7
4
1
3
7
7
6
6.0
rank
469,000
65.6
A
1.1
4
NA
low
value
6
1
1
2
5
1
3
2.0
rank
Natural gas
16,000
108.4
A
0.1
0.04
NA
high
value
3
5
1
1
1
1
7
1.3
rank
Nuclear
18,000
111
B
95
12
9,170
low
value
4
6
4
7
6
6
3
6.7
rank
Biomass
4,000
90.3
B
50
1.4
NA
trace
value
1
3
4
6
4
1
1
3.3
rank
Hydro
12,000
86.6
C
46
0.15
NA
trace
value
2
2
6
5
2
1
1
2.3
rank
Wind (onshore)
46,000
144.3
C
5.7
0.44
NA
trace
value
5
7
6
4
3
1
1
5.3
rank
Solar (PV)
a Energy source with the lowest environmental or economic impact for a given indicator (e.g., greenhouse-gas emissions, cost of electricity, etc.) is assigned a rank of 1, whereas the worst
performing of the 7 energy sources is assigned a rank of 7. Ties are given the same rank. All calculations and supporting data behind this table are detailed in the Supporting Information.
b Includes production-related and life-cycle-embodied emissions.
c Levelized cost of electricity, includes cost amortization for long-term waste management and plant decommissioning for nuclear energy.
d Categorical rating of capacity and availability to deliver electricity on demand.
e For fuel mining and generating footprint.
f Deaths from accidents, excluding chronic health problems.
g Categorical classification of the volume of the radiotoxic waste stream.
h Average of 3 multicriteria decision-making analysis scenarios with multiplicative weightings applied to the indicator ranks: (1) no weighting = 1 multiplier for all ranks; (2) economic
rationalist = 1 land use, solid waste, and radioactive waste, 2 cost and dispatchability, and 0.5 greenhouse gas emissions and safety; and (3) environmentalist = 1 safety, solid
waste and radioactive waste, 2 greenhouse gas emissions and land use, and 0.5 cost and dispatchability. Weightings are arbitrary but illustrative of typical viewpoints.
Coal
Table 1. Per terawatt hour (TWh) data for key sustainability and economicenvironmental impact indicators associated with 7 electricity generation options and relative ranksa of the energy
source.
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
708
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
counters one of the principal concerns regarding nuclear expansionthe proliferation of nuclear weapons
because its electrorefining-based fuel-recycling system
cannot separate weapons-grade fissile material (Till &
Chang 2011). The production of such material requires
either specialist uranium-enrichment facilities or dedicated short-cycle reactors associated with large (highly
visible) aqueous chemical processing infrastructure
neither of which are required for the IFRs
pyroprocessing-based, closed-fuel cycle (Blees 2008)
(Fig. 3). As an added benefit, the large-scale deployment of fast reactor technology would result in all of
the nuclear-waste and depleted-uranium stockpiles generated over the last 50 years being consumed as fuel
(Fig. 3).
The IFR, and other generation IV designs that use
thorium (Hargraves 2012), offer a realistic future for
nuclear power as a major source of sustainable, carbonfree energy for global civilization; there are sufficient fuel
resources to last for millions of years (Lightfoot et al.
2006). At present, uranium remains cheap and policies
for treating actinide wastes (e.g., direct geological disposal vs. recycling) are in limbo in most countries. However, if nuclear power were to be deployed on a large
scale, such recycling would become essential.
For many countriesincluding most high energyconsuming nations in East Asia and Western Europe with
little spare land and already high population densities
the options for massive expansion of renewable energy
alternatives are heavily constrained (Trainer 2010; Hong
et al. 2013a). But making a case for a major role for nuclear fission in a future sustainable energy mix does not
mean arguing against energy efficiency and renewable
options. Under the right circumstances, these alternatives
might also make important contributions (Mackay 2008;
Nicholson 2012). Ideally, all low-carbon energy options
should be free to compete on a fair and level playing
field against a range of sustainability criteria, as exemplified in Table 1, so as to maximize displacement of fossil
fuels (one of the key goals for effective biodiversity conservation). Ultimately, as the urgency of climate-change
mitigation and land sparing mounts and requirements for
sustainable growth in developing economies and replacement of ageing infrastructure in the developed world
come to the fore, pragmatic decisions on the viability of
all types of nonfossil-fuel energy technologies will have
to be made on a nonprejudicial basis.
Energy Trade-Offs and the Big Conservation Picture
The alternative energy futures we contrastednamely
those rejecting or embracing nuclear power to replace
the bulk of todays reliance on fossil fuelsare only 2
possible pathways among many different plausible permutations. Our goal was not to promulgate any particular energy mix; rather, we used concrete examples to
709
Figure 3. Open and closed nuclear fuel cycles. Todays typical open fuel cycle (top) follows these steps: yellowcake
ore is mined; uranium is extracted, enriched, and fabricated into oxide fuel rods; fuel rods are run through a
water-cooled-and-moderated generation III thermal nuclear reactor to generate electricity for approximately
18 months; and used fuel (with radioactive actinides and fission products) is cooled, stored, and eventually
disposed of in a deep, long-term underground geological repository. A closed fuel cycle (bottom) greatly improves
sustainability and lessen environmental impacts of nuclear fission by converting the used thermal-reactor fuel
(and depleted uranium left over from enrichment) into metal fuel and then recycling this repeatedly through a
liquid-metal-cooled fast neutron reactor. Over many cycles, this allows extraction of about 150 times more energy
from the uranium and results in a far more compact waste stream with a radiotoxic lifespan of a few centuries,
instead of hundreds of millennia (abbreviations: U, uranium; Pu, plutonium; MA, minor actinides; , radiotoxic
half-life).
demonstrate that conservation biologists should apply
similar, objective approaches to rank all the relevant
criteria before supporting or rejecting a particular technology. Lest faith triumph over evidence, rejecting any
given energy source requires finding an alternative and
considering the full spectrum of its environmental and
societal implications.
From a biodiversity-centric standpoint, conservation
professionals also need to consider carefully the energy
sources they will support in terms of how many species
they are willing to lose. In other words, conservation
professionals should be asking themselves what minimum criteria should be met for the choice of global
energy supply in terms of biodiversity persistence (e.g.,
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
710
Figure 4. Comparative energy density of fuels: (a) uranium, (b) compressed natural gas (CNG), (c) coal, and
(d) nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) chemical batteries (standard type used in electric vehicles) required to supply or
store approximately 220 kWh of electricity equivalent per day for 80 years (enough to service all lifetime needs for
lighting, heat, transport, food production, manufacturing, etc. of a developed-world citizen. Total electrical energy
embodied is calculated as 6.4 million kWh. Mass-to-volume relationship is uranium = 780 g or 40.7 cm3 (golf-ball
sized); compressed natural gas = 56 20,000-L tanker trucks; coal = 3,200 t or 4,000 m3 (approximately 800
elephant equivalents); NiMH battery = 86,000 t (elevator-sized battery as tall as the service shaft for 16 Burj
Khalifa sized super skyscrapers). Supporting data and underpinning calculations are in the Supporting
Information.
pertaining more to the implications of its loss and what
we can do to restrict it, so too must we develop our
scientific appraisal of world energy production.
A pertinent piece of information (Fig. 4) suffices to
illustrate the relative impacts of 4 types of energy supply
and dispatchable storage (as distinguished from instantaneous power generation): the average developed-nation
human will use about 6.4 million kWh of energy (not
just electricity) over his or her lifetime. This is equivalent to the energy stored in a 780 g (40.7 cm3 ) golfball-sized lump of uranium; 56 20,000-L tanker trucks
of compressed natural gas; about 3,200 t (4,000 m3 , or
about 800 elephant equivalents) of coal; or, if the storage
capacity required for electricity generated from renewables is considered, a 86,000 t elevator-shaft-dimensioned
battery over 13 km high (Fig. 4). The size of the battery is
equivalent to 16 of the elevator shafts built to service the
worlds tallest building (the Burj Khalifa super skyscraper
in Dubai) stacked on top of one another. These
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
Acknowledgments
B.W. B. and C.J.A.B. are both supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship grants (FT100100200
and FT110100306, respectively). They have no connection to, nor derive any income from, any energyrelated interests.
Supporting Information
An explanation of how to compare alternative energy
sources on an equal basis, definitions of power and energy, and a detailed description of the methods behind
the figures and tables (Appendix S1), a summary of cost
and land use of fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable-energy
systems (Appendix S2), supporting calculations for
Table 1 (Appendix S3), data and modeling for Fig. 1
(Appendix S4), details on the land use and cost calculations for Fig. 2 (Appendix S5), and supporting data
and calculations underpinning Fig. 4 (Appendix S6) are
available online. The authors are solely responsible for
711
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
712
Conservation Biology
Volume 29, No. 3, 2015
Pimentel D, Pimentel MH, editors. 2007. Food, energy, and society. CRC
Press, Baco Raton, Florida.
Smil V. 2010. Energy myths and realities: bringing science to the energy
policy debate. AEI Press, Washington, D.C.
Stickler C, Coe M, Nepstad D, Fiske G, Lefebvre P. 2007. Readiness for
REDD: a preliminary global assessment of tropical forested land suitability for agriculture. A Report for the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties
(COP), December 2007. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth,
Massachusetts.
Till CE, Chang YI. 2011. Plentiful energy: the story of the integral fast
reactor. CreateSpace Publishing, North Charleston, SC.
Trainer T. 2010. Can renewables etc. solve the greenhouse problem?
The negative case. Energy Policy 38:41074114.
Trainer T. 2012. A critique of Jacobson and Delucchis proposals for a
world renewable energy supply. Energy Policy 44:476481.
Wiens J, Fargione J, Hill J. 2011. Biofuels and biodiversity. Ecological
Applications 21:10851095.
Wigley TML. 2011. Coal to gas: The influence of methane leakage.
Climatic Change 108:601608.